Author
Topic: Why abortion is Wrong... (Read 20679 times)

Good way of looking at this, Truth! This ought to be a focus on the mother who is taking a huge risk carrying a pregnancy and, if not aborted, she will be tied up for 20 years looking after the child - at least! So, here's another question for the 'pro-life' people.

If it is right that a woman is to be legally banned from seeking and abortion, and hence have 20 years worth or expense and life disruption, ought not the same law prescribe that the father should be made to come up with the cash to support the mother and child, with the State picking up the bill or supplementing it if the father can't provide enough cash? We would be talking about sufficient cash to not only live but to be able to afford holidays and help with the child so that the mother was able to pursue education with a view to getting a reasonable job? It is not right to put burdens on the woman but the State and the father get off free.

Would you support that, Mhaberling?

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

I did not invent the term, nor have I explicitly approved it or disapproved of it. I consider myself pro-life because my views on abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, assisted suicide, embryonic stem cell research, and IVF are all consistent with positions of the pro-life movement.

This is disingenuous, Mooby. The "pro-life" movement concerns itself specifically with abortion, not with any of those other things. Indeed, I think many people opposed to abortion (and who thus call themselves pro-life) are not opposed to, say, capital punishment. You may indeed be consistently pro-life on all of those issues - I'm not in a position to judge - but that does not mean that the pro-life movement as a whole is. The likelihood, in fact, is that it is not, for two reasons; first, the pro-life movement was formed in response to abortions being legalized, and thus whether someone is part of the anti-abortion "pro-life" movement has no bearing on their positions in other issues, and second, a person is less likely to be a member of multiple groups than they are to be a member of a single group.

Quote from: Mooby

Thank you for calling me dishonest, though. I find that ad hominems are the best way to show confidence in my views, and clearly you agree.

I think you need to review exactly what an ad hominem is before you start leveling accusations such as this. An ad hominem is when someone rejects an argument because of some irrelevant fact or point about the person making the argument. Your intellectual honesty, or lack thereof, is of very great relevance here; indeed, if you are not being honest, it calls your whole argument into question. So while Azdgari might be wrong about you being dishonest, I think you have to admit that it's relevant and thus not an ad hominem.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

I'm just very pragmatic about the issue of abortion. I might, just a little bit, actually think that it is "wrong" since, after all, it is the termination of a potential life. I wish that free birth control and sex education would make it unnecessary or much rarer (as mentioned earlier by others).

Despite this cognitive dissonance, I would never advocate for it to be illegal and I believe, wholeheartedly, that abortion should be widely available and inexpensive (or free).

The rights of existing humans have precedence over potential/undeveloped human beings. Period.

The abortion debate is one that seems to be getting louder and louder in today's society... This is my take... Abortion is wrong, in all cases except if it is endangering the life of the mother. From a religious or secular view I believe that the very Idea that this is still something we debate is rather sick. Am embryo, a fetus is not just a living thing, it is the embodiment of human potential. From the moment it is created it has the potential to be a great person. To think, to create, to love, to be loved. It has the potential to change the world, and taking that away is just sick and frankly a crime against the species as a whole. A human being is the most powerful thing in the known universe and cutting it off before it gets a chance is just not right. Please tell me I am wrong.

You are wrong. But I am not sure why I bother to reply. Maybe it's because I woke up at 3:30am and can't get back to sleep. (I also just realized that this thread started a year ago and I haven't read any of the responses, so remember that.)

You are conflating issues while using an emotional plea for your viewpoint.

A individual lying on the street, homeless, nearly freezing to death, is an embodiment of human potential. In fact, he is a human not just a potential human. You likely wouldn't pay much attention to him, much less fawn over his very existence.

A woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy if she doesn't want one. Period. It's her body, her choice. As a man, if I had something growing inside of me and I didn't want it there, I have the right over my person to ask a doctor to cut it out. Period. So does she. I do not view women as second class citizens of earth who are relegated to suffer whatever whimsy men can muster. To force women to do whatever we want just because they are women is not only sexist, it's perverted.

If men could get pregnant, abortion would always be an option. There is no doubt about that. At all. Zero.

Furthermore, from a religious/ethical perspective, there is no issue with either on the topic of abortion. In the bible god dashed to pieces the fetuses of countless women, and the bible makes no other bones about the issues of fetuses. It's not even a topic. It's not even a commandment. Yet, some people have turned their obsession over the human fetus into some kind of multiorgasmic sexual fetish that must be satisfied by enslaving women in the bondage of somebody else's fantasies. It's sick, perverted, illogical, stupid and sexist.

Finally, your emotional plea to make every fetus the object of ultimate human desire by attributing to it so many prophetic graces ignores the reality that we would all be better off if Adolph Hitler was never born (the most obvious token example of the 20th century). Just because it's a fetus doesn't mean it's going to make a great human that must be protected at all costs. That's just silly. Almost always the fetish practitioners are of the Christian fundamentalist cult who totally ignore what happens to the little fetuses after they are born. They are ignored when it comes to helping out the mother raise them. The Cult of Christianity further persecutes the mother for giving up her child for adoption, does little if anything to help raise the child, routinely rails against paying any contributions (called taxes) to help feed or educate children (while getting really cranky if it doesn't receive its own tithings) and then impales the grown adult fetuses upon the daggers of the law for just about any possible infraction imaginable and happily spends tens of thousands of dollars per year incarcerating them for decades with little hope of education, vocation or freedom. Please reconcile that with your love of human potential.

Did I mention how people treat animals? Is human potential the only potential for life that we care about? As caretakers of this planet under no responsibility for the way we treat our fellow beings?

Despite this cognitive dissonance, I would never advocate for it to be illegal and I believe, wholeheartedly, that abortion should be widely available and inexpensive (or free).

I see abortion as being an option that is available but that option is not a right in the sense that breathing or being free from oppression are. Since abortion has to be performed by someone else that is presummably not an invested family member of the would be mother, the idea that it should be free is not a good one IMO. The medical professionals that perform the service have the right to be compensated and that means that those that wish to have abortive proceduces bear the brunt of the burden for compensating the individuals that perform the services. As a society we know that there will always be those that aren't in positions to take care of themselves so it would behoove us all to make provisions to assist those that find themselves in that segment of society.

This is disingenuous, Mooby. The "pro-life" movement concerns itself specifically with abortion, not with any of those other things.

No, he's right.

To expand on that, there is a very specific collection of, more or less, coherent perspectives that are considered Pro-Life and they do include anti-abortion, IVF, capital punishment, etc. These are also generally rooted in catholic doctrine and endorsed by the RCC, though I am sure you would find some non-catholics among the movement.

However, it is a little like the way people abuse the word "theory". There are other anti-abortion folks who also call themselves "pro-life" who do not subscribe to all of the above views, as you pointed out. In my experience (not rooted in data) these tend to be the majority of the pro-lifers. Possibly because of that, when people say "pro-life", it is generally implied to be the latter, and not the former. Moob, who is catholic unless I am mistaken, means the former.

This is disingenuous, Mooby. The "pro-life" movement concerns itself specifically with abortion, not with any of those other things.

No, he's right.

To expand on that, there is a very specific collection of, more or less, coherent perspectives that are considered Pro-Life and they do include anti-abortion, IVF, capital punishment, etc. These are also generally rooted in catholic doctrine and endorsed by the RCC, though I am sure you would find some non-catholics among the movement.

However, it is a little like the way people abuse the word "theory". There are other anti-abortion folks who also call themselves "pro-life" who do not subscribe to all of the above views, as you pointed out. In my experience (not rooted in data) these tend to be the majority of the pro-lifers. Possibly because of that, when people say "pro-life", it is generally implied to be the latter, and not the former. Moob, who is catholic unless I am mistaken, means the former.

I didn't know that. I've only ever heard of pro-life as a reference to anti-abortion, and I would suggest that that is the more common usage of the term.

Logged

If we ever travel thousands of light years to a planet inhabited by intelligent life, let's just make patterns in their crops and leave.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is only one of a number of organizations that are opposed to abortion. They may be pro-life in most, if not all, respects, but can you say the same about every other anti-abortion group out there? You shouldn't imply or state that because a group calls itself pro-life, that they actually are pro-life in every respect. That is what I refer to by disingenuousness - not noticing or ignoring other "pro-life" groups (which aren't pro-life in most situations), while pointing to a few that are.

Quote from: Mooby

What you're describing is a specific type of ad hominem fallacy: tu quoque. So yes, it is indeed an ad hominem fallacy.

I disagree. The anti-abortion movement as a whole calls itself pro-life, even though it's specifically about abortions. They intentionally chose to call themselves pro-life for propaganda purposes. I don't doubt that there are organizations which better deserve the moniker, but the fact of the matter is that by associating with these other groups, they're giving them cover. Someone, like, say, you, can point to a specific pro-life group like the USCCB, giving the implication that the entire pro-life movement is like that, when in fact it isn't. That's dishonest, which I think is what Azdgari was referring to.

It isn't a tu quoque anyway, because Azdgari is referring to the fact that anti-abortion groups have focused the idea of being pro-life specifically on being opposed to abortion, as a form of propaganda so they can refer to their opponents as pro-death or anti-life. You get the same kind of propaganda with anti-euthanasia groups - they aren't really arguing the merits of their actual position, they're using a variant of the "bloody shirt" tactic.

« Last Edit: January 07, 2014, 02:18:18 PM by jaimehlers »

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

However, it is a little like the way people abuse the word "theory". There are other anti-abortion folks who also call themselves "pro-life" who do not subscribe to all of the above views, as you pointed out. In my experience (not rooted in data) these tend to be the majority of the pro-lifers. Possibly because of that, when people say "pro-life", it is generally implied to be the latter, and not the former. Moob, who is catholic unless I am mistaken, means the former.

This actually underscores the point I'm trying to make.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

He agreed this did not necessarily include everyone who called themselves "pro-life", but that there was a range of issues covered. He also left room for discrepancy, since he said he was not the "lord of labels".

I agree, Mooby can be obnoxious and slippery, but let's not get carried away.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is only one of a number of organizations that are opposed to abortion. They may be pro-life in most, if not all, respects, but can you say the same about every other anti-abortion group out there? You shouldn't imply or state that because a group calls itself pro-life, that they actually are pro-life in every respect. That is what I refer to by disingenuousness - not noticing or ignoring other "pro-life" groups (which aren't pro-life in most situations), while pointing to a few that are.

I'm pretty sure that I mentioned earlier that there are people who identify as "pro-life" but do not apply it to all life issues. I also never claimed that every organization has the same goals. I am most familiar with the Catholic pro-life stance, which is why I cited the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.

If you think that abortion is the only face of the pro-life movement, then you must not be paying attention. The pro-life movement has spoken up on several life issues over the past several years. When embryonic stem cell research and cloning became realities, pro-lifers spoke up. During the Terry Schiavo controversy, pro-life activists (along with disability rights activists) spoke up. When Oregon legalized physician-assisted suicide, the Oregon pro-life groups responded. Yes, abortion is certainly the biggest issue pro-life movements face due to its scope, but it's not the only issue the movements address.

Quote

Someone, like, say, you, can point to a specific pro-life group like the USCCB, giving the implication that the entire pro-life movement is like that, when in fact it isn't. That's dishonest,

I explicitly stated the entire pro-life movement wasn't like that, so perhaps you should read my posts before calling them dishonest.

I pointed to the USCCB because it was the first American group to speak out on pro-life issues, and the most influential. Evangelical Protestant churches didn't really join the movement until the 1980s and 1990s; before then, all of the major organizations were Catholic. Today, the largest pro-life group in the US is National Right To Life, which covers issues such as euthanasia, assisted suicide, stem cell research, cloning, health care, end of life care, and infanticide. The biggest difference between its platform and the USCCB is it does not have an official stance on capital punishment, which the USCCB does.

In other words, this claim of yours that American pro-life groups only focus on abortion is a load of garbage, as the original group and the largest group in America both have very similar platforms that encompass several different issues. Sure, you could probably go out and find a handful of groups that only focus on abortions, but as I openly admitted some people who use the label are not explicitly pro-life on every issue, that would not be particularly damning. My point is that the pro-life movement in general is an ethical philosophy spanning multiple different issues, and I think that's pretty well borne out by the fact that the major organizations apply this ethical philosophy to multiple issues.[1]

Quote

anti-abortion groups have focused the idea of being pro-life specifically on being opposed to abortion, as a form of propaganda so they can refer to their opponents as pro-death or anti-life.

Anti-abortion and pro-abortion (or pro-abortion rights, if you prefer) are fine terms for delineating specific views on specific laws. I like "pro-life" because it has a broader scope than "anti-abortion" and more accurately describes my position.

I think "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are actually pretty good descriptors of each side's position on the issue, which IMO is important because the two sides are arguing two fundamentally different things. "Anti-choice" and "anti-life" are rather poor descriptors, by contrast, because the pro-abortion camp is not motivated against life and the anti-abortion camp is not motivated against choice.

The point I was trying to make was that there are groups which hide under the umbrella of "pro-life", but are narrowly focused, or else claim to have a broad focus (such as in their mission statement), but their emphasis is narrow.

Quote from: screwtape

He agreed this did not necessarily include everyone who called themselves "pro-life", but that there was a range of issues covered. He also left room for discrepancy, since he said he was not the "lord of labels".

I agree, Mooby can be obnoxious and slippery, but let's not get carried away.

I still think he is at least being somewhat disingenuous; he's trying to present as little as he can on this subject and only adds to it when he's pressed, which gives an appearance of disingenuousness (pretending that one knows less about a subject than one actually does, and thus being less than candid). Maybe he isn't actually trying to be disingenuous, but in that case he might want to consider modifying his approach and presentation.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

I'm pretty sure that I mentioned earlier that there are people who identify as "pro-life" but do not apply it to all life issues. I also never claimed that every organization has the same goals. I am most familiar with the Catholic pro-life stance, which is why I cited the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.

I went back several posts to get some additional context, and so I caught that. However, your original response to me on this, which was two words and a link to the USCCB website, was not very helpful. In fact, it added to the appearance of being disingenuous.

Quote from: Mooby

If you think that abortion is the only face of the pro-life movement, then you must not be paying attention. The pro-life movement has spoken up on several life issues over the past several years. When embryonic stem cell research and cloning became realities, pro-lifers spoke up. During the Terry Schiavo controversy, pro-life activists (along with disability rights activists) spoke up. When Oregon legalized physician-assisted suicide, the Oregon pro-life groups responded. Yes, abortion is certainly the biggest issue pro-life movements face due to its scope, but it's not the only issue the movements address.

Granted, but that's tangential to the point I'm trying to get at. Are you willing to acknowledge the point that referring to a movement as pro-life (or pro-choice, for that matter) lends itself to calling opponents of that movement anti-life (or anti-choice)? In other words, it has a strong propaganda effect, which has nothing to do with the actual issues. More to the point, it doesn't really assist in understanding things either. You may define "pro-life" as being anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia, anti-stem cell research, and so on, but those are all things you are against. They don't define what pro-life actually means to you - or to anyone else, for that matter.

Quote from: Mooby

I explicitly stated the entire pro-life movement wasn't like that, so perhaps you should read my posts before calling them dishonest.

I can't help it if your posts give the appearance of dishonesty or disingenuousness to me. Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but you're the one writing the posts. If people are taking it a way other than how you intended it, then perhaps you might want to spend some time thinking about why that might be instead of merely dismissing it as my (or Azdgari's) problem.

Quote from: Mooby

In other words, this claim of yours that American pro-life groups only focus on abortion is a load of garbage

Now who needs to go back and read posts? I said that the anti-abortion movement in America calls itself pro-life, even though it's specifically about abortions. Even you admitted that abortion was the biggest issue facing pro-life groups. Perhaps you should spend some time considering just how much - or how little - emphasis those groups actually give to anything besides abortions, instead of simply reading their mission statements. For example, check how much funding those groups put towards abortion stuff, as opposed to the other issues you mentioned.

Quote from: Mooby

I like "pro-life" because it has a broader scope than "anti-abortion" and more accurately describes my position.

This may come as a shock to you, but I consider myself pro-life as well as being pro-choice - and more to the point, not pro-abortion. That's because life isn't really about making sure something that's alive stays alive as long as possible, whatever they think about it, or making sure that if a woman gets pregnant, that she should give birth whatever she thinks about it.

Is it ethical to try to keep someone who's lived a long life alive when their body starts to fail, whatever they want? Is it ethical to make a woman go through the trauma of childbirth just because she got pregnant, when she was using birth control? You might have different answers than I do on those questions, but one thing's for sure - it isn't ethical to try to force others to abide by what you want, or to coerce them into doing it (say, through the law).

Quote from: Mooby

I think "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are actually pretty good descriptors of each side's position on the issue, which IMO is important because the two sides are arguing two fundamentally different things. "Anti-choice" and "anti-life" are rather poor descriptors, by contrast, because the pro-abortion camp is not motivated against life and the anti-abortion camp is not motivated against choice.

That last sentence of yours is exactly why calling one side pro-choice and the other pro-life doesn't really work. I think you'll find that there's a surprising amount of overlap between the two sides once you get past the true believers.

I went back several posts to get some additional context, and so I caught that. However, your original response to me on this, which was two words and a link to the USCCB website, was not very helpful. In fact, it added to the appearance of being disingenuous.

You quite confidently told me I was disingenuous and proceeded to tell me wrong information about what I believe without citing anything to back it up before I gave you that response. "Excuse me?" was the most polite way I could think of to express my reaction to such a disrespectful and arrogant reply.

I did not think to repeat my post from before because I had no reason to think that you wouldn't have read it.

Quote

Are you willing to acknowledge the point that referring to a movement as pro-life (or pro-choice, for that matter) lends itself to calling opponents of that movement anti-life (or anti-choice)?

No. I'm willing to acknowledge that some proponents on each side throw those terms around[1], but I don't see the use of the terms themselves of implying the opposite.

Again, here is my view: "if you want to twist it to assume that those who consistently assume positions on life issues that allow for the killing of a human as "anti-life," that's your problem." Same goes for pro-choice.

Quote

You may define "pro-life" as being anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia, anti-stem cell research, and so on, but those are all things you are against.

I do not define it that way. I define it as an ethical philosophy that places the intrinsic value of a human life as supreme.

Quote

Even you admitted that abortion was the biggest issue facing pro-life groups. Perhaps you should spend some time considering just how much - or how little - emphasis those groups actually give to anything besides abortions, instead of simply reading their mission statements. For example, check how much funding those groups put towards abortion stuff, as opposed to the other issues you mentioned.

Abortion is the one issue that has been constant for 40+ years and has resulted in millions of deaths. Other issues tend to come up when they're prominent. Embryonic stem cell research opposition arose with said research, and succeeded in barring funding for new stem cell lines. Euthanasia is still outlawed in the US, and assisted suicide has not spread nationwide. Capital punishment is only opposed by some pro-life groups, and is much smaller in scope than abortion (1359 U.S. executions since 1976 vs. 3126 U.S. abortions since this morning.)

So yes, they spend the majority of their resources facing the biggest issue.

Quote

This may come as a shock to you, but I consider myself pro-life as well as being pro-choice - and more to the point, not pro-abortion.

If we're going to use the terms more casually, then I can give the same response.

Quote

Is it ethical to try to keep someone who's lived a long life alive when their body starts to fail, whatever they want?

No, I don't think it is.

Quote

Is it ethical to make a woman go through the trauma of childbirth just because she got pregnant, when she was using birth control?

I don't see how the birth control part is relevant. And no, I don't think it is, but I think it's even less ethical to intentionally kill a human.

Quote

You might have different answers than I do on those questions, but one thing's for sure - it isn't ethical to try to force others to abide by what you want, or to coerce them into doing it (say, through the law).

Are you extending this to things like seat belt laws and speed limits? I find your position a bit vague here.

Quote

That last sentence of yours is exactly why calling one side pro-choice and the other pro-life doesn't really work. I think you'll find that there's a surprising amount of overlap between the two sides once you get past the true believers.

You quite confidently told me I was disingenuous and proceeded to tell me wrong information about what I believe without citing anything to back it up before I gave you that response. "Excuse me?" was the most polite way I could think of to express my reaction to such a disrespectful and arrogant reply.

I didn't say a word about what you believe or don't believe (except to say that I wasn't in a position to judge whether you were consistently pro-life on those issues you mentioned). I called you disingenuous because you said, "I did not invent the term, nor have I explicitly approved it or disapproved of it", and then went on to say how you considered yourself pro-life for various reasons - suggesting that you did indeed approve of the term as it applied to you, and by extension, others who are pro-life.

In short, you put your foot in it, got upset because I called you on it, and compounded your error by making a bad assumption about what I was talking about in the first place.

Quote from: Mooby

I did not think to repeat my post from before because I had no reason to think that you wouldn't have read it.

My last post in this thread previous to that was almost a year ago. I responded to that specific response - I don't always go back and read the stuff before it.

Quote from: Mooby

No. I'm willing to acknowledge that some proponents on each side throw those terms around[1], but I don't see the use of the terms themselves of implying the opposite.

with anti-choice being about 3.7 times more popular than anti-life, if Google search results are to be believed

You might consider that it's very easy to springboard from "anti-life" to "murderer" and other such choice terms. Also, you need to read what I wrote a bit more carefully. I said that those terms lend themselves to name-calling, which they do. I'll certainly grant that not everyone engages in such name-calling, though, but it does happen. However, that might just be human nature at work.

Quote from: Mooby

Again, here is my view: "if you want to twist it to assume that those who consistently assume positions on life issues that allow for the killing of a human as "anti-life," that's your problem." Same goes for pro-choice.

That's phrased somewhat awkwardly.

Quote from: Mooby

I do not define it that way. I define it as an ethical philosophy that places the intrinsic value of a human life as supreme.

Which is what I was looking for. You can't define what someone is very well merely by stating what they are not. But here's a serious question for you, then. If the intrinsic value of a human life is supreme, how do you determine relative value? For example, most adults instinctively try to protect children, even at the risk (or cost) of their own life. How would you work that into your philosophy?

Quote from: Mooby

Abortion is the one issue that has been constant for 40+ years and has resulted in millions of deaths. Other issues tend to come up when they're prominent. Embryonic stem cell research opposition arose with said research, and succeeded in barring funding for new stem cell lines. Euthanasia is still outlawed in the US, and assisted suicide has not spread nationwide. Capital punishment is only opposed by some pro-life groups, and is much smaller in scope than abortion (1359 U.S. executions since 1976 vs. 3126 U.S. abortions since this morning.)

That begs the question - what exactly are you considering an abortion?

In any case, what about other things which result in human deaths, such as smoking, to name one? According to the CDC, the number of Americans who die as a result of smoking is up to 443,000 per year (which doesn't touch on health costs, both to the smoker and to others). That may not be as high as the number of abortions in the USA, but it's still a pretty substantial number. And it's not something I hear pro-life groups talk about, let alone contribute money to.

Quote from: Mooby

So yes, they spend the majority of their resources facing the biggest issue.

I hope you can recognize that this pretty well links abortion and pro-life in most people's minds. In short, while pro-life groups may care about other issues, their primary focus is on abortion, and I suspect the perception is that it's what they really care about - that they give lip service to other pro-life issues, but they recognize that abortion is what gets them their donations and whatnot.

Quote from: Mooby

If we're going to use the terms more casually, then I can give the same response.

Can you elaborate? Because you pretty clearly indicated that you were heavily pro-life...so I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this now.

Quote from: Mooby

No, I don't think it is.

What about someone who has a fatal illness, or cancer, and who doesn't want to be made to stay alive just for the sake of staying alive?

Quote from: Mooby

I don't see how the birth control part is relevant. And no, I don't think it is, but I think it's even less ethical to intentionally kill a human.

Why do you say the fact that she was using birth control is not relevant? And, if a woman gets pregnant, it's unethical for her to seek to end the pregnancy no matter what? If she used birth control, if she was raped, if there's a good chance of her dying as a result? None of those change the ethical equation?

Quote from: Mooby

Are you extending this to things like seat belt laws and speed limits? I find your position a bit vague here.

I left that open intentionally to see how you would respond. I'm a little disappointed that you'd stretch it that far. But I'll specify. I was referring to forcing or coercing people into abiding by a group's ethical beliefs, say in abortion, or stem cell research, or other things along those lines. For example, if someone wants to donate gametes to a scientific organization with the understanding that they'll be used to further stem cell research, I'd consider it highly unethical for a group to try to outlaw or forbid it because they disagreed with the practice.

Quote from: Mooby

And what is this overlap?

Do I really have to spell this out for you? Pro-choice and pro-life mean different things to different people, so you can have someone who considers themselves pro-choice but is basically against abortion, or who considers themselves pro-life but isn't willing to try to force others to abide by their beliefs.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

The point I was trying to make was that there are groups which hide under the umbrella of "pro-life", but are narrowly focused, or else claim to have a broad focus (such as in their mission statement), but their emphasis is narrow.

Okay. Not trying to speak for anyone else, but I think you, I and the Moob all at least mostly agree this is the case. At least, it seems so to me.

I called you disingenuous because you said, "I did not invent the term, nor have I explicitly approved it or disapproved of it", and then went on to say how you considered yourself pro-life for various reasons - suggesting that you did indeed approve of the term as it applied to you, and by extension, others who are pro-life.

I also gave examples above of people who identify as atheists yet disapproves the term "atheist" and a feminist who identifies as a feminist yet disapproves of the term "feminism." It's odd that you'd catch the thing I posted earlier yet miss the part I posted later.

I have no formal position on the word. None. As I've said earlier in this thread, the term is neutral to me. I neither approve of it nor disapprove of it. I do think it does a fair[1] job of summing up the general position of the pro-life crowd on life issues, but otherwise I don't really care all that much. Not everything in the word perturbs me, and the word "pro-life" does not.

Quote

You might consider that it's very easy to springboard from "anti-life" to "murderer" and other such choice terms. Also, you need to read what I wrote a bit more carefully. I said that those terms lend themselves to name-calling, which they do. I'll certainly grant that not everyone engages in such name-calling, though, but it does happen. However, that might just be human nature at work.

People are going to call names regardless of what terms we use. "Murderer" will be used regardless of what those against abortion call themselves. Are "anti-life" and "anti-choice" such huge problems that we need to abandon the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice?" I don't know. Probably not. Do I particularly care, and/or does it affect my life in any significant way? Not really.

Quote

Quote from: Mooby

Again, here is my view: "if you want to twist it to assume that those who consistently assume positions on life issues that allow for the killing of a human as "anti-life," that's your problem." Same goes for pro-choice.

My bad. In other words, I don't run around calling people anti-life. If you hold a position contrary to pro-life ideals, and because of this you wish to infer that you're "anti-life," be my guest. If someone else calls you anti-life, feel free to punch them or whatever won't get you arrested.

Quote

Which is what I was looking for. You can't define what someone is very well merely by stating what they are not. But here's a serious question for you, then. If the intrinsic value of a human life is supreme, how do you determine relative value? For example, most adults instinctively try to protect children, even at the risk (or cost) of their own life. How would you work that into your philosophy?

Excellent question. The basic tenet of the philosophy is that human life has an intrinsic value that supersedes all other values. So regardless of how much money you're paid, it's always wrong to kill someone, for example.

Because of this, the conflicts we address are generally between the potential death of one life vs. another. Obviously we could go on for pages discussing the nitty gritty details, but in general we err on the side of protecting the more innocent party. For instance, if your life is being threatened by someone else, it is ok to use self-defense that may result in the aggressor's death because you are the more innocent party. Also, we tend to look more to positive action vs. passive inaction. For instance, a mother throwing her child in front of a car is far more culpable than a mother who fails to be a hero by diving in front of a car to save her child.

Quote

That begs the question - what exactly are you considering an abortion?

Any induced termination of a human from conception until delivery.

Quote

In any case, what about other things which result in human deaths, such as smoking, to name one? According to the CDC, the number of Americans who die as a result of smoking is up to 443,000 per year (which doesn't touch on health costs, both to the smoker and to others). That may not be as high as the number of abortions in the USA, but it's still a pretty substantial number. And it's not something I hear pro-life groups talk about, let alone contribute money to.

Smoking is a risk factor for all sorts of things that can lead to death, but it is not a form of suicide. People generally don't smoke because they want to kill themselves, smoking generally takes many years to cause death, smoking itself generally doesn't cause death but rather leads to smoking-related health conditions, and not everyone who smokes will die from their smoking.

In other words, smoking is a huge health problem and should be addressed, but it doesn't really fall under the mantle of pro-life. We're focused more on the things that are intentional, direct affronts to human life.

Quote

Can you elaborate? Because you pretty clearly indicated that you were heavily pro-life...so I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this now.

If you're for legalized abortion but can also be pro-life in the sense you value life, then I can be against legalized abortion but pro-choice in the sense that I still want to provide plenty of options. There are many choices that can be made that limit abortion or eliminate it altogether, and I'm all for having as many options as possible. Just not the option of abortion.

Quote

What about someone who has a fatal illness, or cancer, and who doesn't want to be made to stay alive just for the sake of staying alive?

Same answer.

Quote

Why do you say the fact that she was using birth control is not relevant? And, if a woman gets pregnant, it's unethical for her to seek to end the pregnancy no matter what? If she used birth control, if she was raped, if there's a good chance of her dying as a result? None of those change the ethical equation?

Birth control certainly does not. Making a rule that a woman who used birth control can get an elective abortion over those who did not suggests that it's the latter woman's fault she has an unplanned pregnancy, that the latter woman deserves her pregnancy for not taking the proper steps in advance. It's thinly veiled slut shaming.

I realize rape is contentious, but it still doesn't change the equation for me. Rape is a terrible, terrible thing, but for me it comes down to the intrinsic value of human life overriding the terribleness of the rape.

Risk to health is a sticky one, because here you have risk of death by passive means vs. an intentional killing. I'd say the latter is worse but then again I can't ask everyone to be a hero. So I'm going to weasel out and say that after exhausting all other options (and it's very rare that some other option isn't at least available to try), it might be ok. Preferably killing via double effect if it's at all possible.

Quote

I left that open intentionally to see how you would respond. I'm a little disappointed that you'd stretch it that far.

Then you shouldn't have left it that open. I prefer couches to love seats; if you give me room to stretch out, I'm going to stretch.

Quote

I was referring to forcing or coercing people into abiding by a group's ethical beliefs, say in abortion, or stem cell research, or other things along those lines.

That's done all the time, though. Laws forbidding stealing coerce people who don't believe in personal property to abide by the majority's ethical beliefs. Laws forcing a group or government to recognize a same sex marriage impose an ethical belief on that group/government. And so on.

I'd say it's not my (or the government's) business in most cases where the effect is limited to those making the decision. But on an issue centering around whether one human is allowed to kill another, I think it perfectly within the rights of the government to protect the latter person from being killed.

Quote

For example, if someone wants to donate gametes to a scientific organization with the understanding that they'll be used to further stem cell research, I'd consider it highly unethical for a group to try to outlaw or forbid it because they disagreed with the practice.

I also gave examples above of people who identify as atheists yet disapproves the term "atheist" and a feminist who identifies as a feminist yet disapproves of the term "feminism." It's odd that you'd catch the thing I posted earlier yet miss the part I posted later.

Have you noticed the key difference between them and you yet? They disapprove. You don't. Indeed, you've specifically said that you neither approve nor disapprove of it...which means, what, exactly? That you're apathetic? That you don't think about it? That you like it and dislike it at the same time?

Quote from: Mooby

I have no formal position on the word. None. As I've said earlier in this thread, the term is neutral to me. I neither approve of it nor disapprove of it. I do think it does a fair[1] job of summing up the general position of the pro-life crowd on life issues, but otherwise I don't really care all that much. Not everything in the word perturbs me, and the word "pro-life" does not.

The above reminds me of the Neutral Planet from Futurama more than anything. You're being very careful not to say anything meaningful except that you think it's a fair descriptive term, which doesn't exactly say that much. More to the point, it contributes to that appearance of disingenuousness - as in, lacking candor and/or sincerity - that I keep complaining about. You say a lot of words, but you don't really tell anyone anything useful by saying them.

Quote from: Mooby

People are going to call names regardless of what terms we use. "Murderer" will be used regardless of what those against abortion call themselves. Are "anti-life" and "anti-choice" such huge problems that we need to abandon the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice?" I don't know. Probably not. Do I particularly care, and/or does it affect my life in any significant way? Not really.

Then maybe you can enlighten me on something. If you don't particularly care about things like this, then why are you talking about it?

Quote from: Mooby

My bad. In other words, I don't run around calling people anti-life. If you hold a position contrary to pro-life ideals, and because of this you wish to infer that you're "anti-life," be my guest. If someone else calls you anti-life, feel free to punch them or whatever won't get you arrested.

Alright.

Quote from: Mooby

Excellent question. The basic tenet of the philosophy is that human life has an intrinsic value that supersedes all other values. So regardless of how much money you're paid, it's always wrong to kill someone, for example.

Because of this, the conflicts we address are generally between the potential death of one life vs. another. Obviously we could go on for pages discussing the nitty gritty details, but in general we err on the side of protecting the more innocent party. For instance, if your life is being threatened by someone else, it is ok to use self-defense that may result in the aggressor's death because you are the more innocent party. Also, we tend to look more to positive action vs. passive inaction. For instance, a mother throwing her child in front of a car is far more culpable than a mother who fails to be a hero by diving in front of a car to save her child.

Seems to me that in the former case, the mother is committing murder, whereas in the latter, the mother is simply not acting. Is it correct to say that you would find a mother who died to protect her child by throwing herself in the way of a car even less culpable for causing her own death because she acted to save another?

Also, what about a situation that's less clear-cut? Like, say, someone who's otherwise innocent risking their life to help save the life of someone who's not. Let's say you have a convicted murderer, and someone gets beaten to death shielding him from an angry mob?

Quote from: Mooby

Any induced termination of a human from conception until delivery.

Alright. I don't agree with your definition (given that there's a sizable percentage of miscarriages even today with modern medicine, at least in the first trimester), but that's a bit beside the point.

Quote from: Mooby

Smoking is a risk factor for all sorts of things that can lead to death, but it is not a form of suicide. People generally don't smoke because they want to kill themselves, smoking generally takes many years to cause death, smoking itself generally doesn't cause death but rather leads to smoking-related health conditions, and not everyone who smokes will die from their smoking.

In other words, smoking is a huge health problem and should be addressed, but it doesn't really fall under the mantle of pro-life. We're focused more on the things that are intentional, direct affronts to human life.

I can't say I agree; this seems like mincing words to get around inconvenient facts. When you consider that the average smoker cuts at least a decade off of their lifespan due to those health problems you acknowledged, when you consider the harm that smokers can do to others, including reducing their lifespans - especially to the 'unborn' that pro-life people make their top priority, not to mention young children born to parents who smoke - seems to me that it fits the bill of an intentional, direct affront to human life. But that's just my opinion.

Quote from: Mooby

If you're for legalized abortion but can also be pro-life in the sense you value life, then I can be against legalized abortion but pro-choice in the sense that I still want to provide plenty of options. There are many choices that can be made that limit abortion or eliminate it altogether, and I'm all for having as many options as possible. Just not the option of abortion.

And this is why the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" really aren't all that appropriate.

Quote from: Mooby

Birth control certainly does not. Making a rule that a woman who used birth control can get an elective abortion over those who did not suggests that it's the latter woman's fault she has an unplanned pregnancy, that the latter woman deserves her pregnancy for not taking the proper steps in advance. It's thinly veiled slut shaming.

That's why I think abortion needs to be made available regardless of whether she used (or had access to) birth control. I know you disagree, but consider the flaws in your own position. It puts the 'fault' for getting pregnant on the woman, even if she didn't want anything to do with it, and makes it effectively impossible for her to do anything but go ahead and carry the pregnancy to term. We've seen the consequences of this attitude - indeed, they exist even today, in this country, never mind the rest of the world. Women who are made to feel ashamed for having sex outside of marriage, women who are seen as sluts because of becoming pregnant while unwed, single mothers who are somehow seen as unfit parents because of it. In other countries, it's far worse; women who are considered - and who often accept being - second class citizens, who are held responsible for being raped and even made to marry their rapists, who's only value is seen in how many children they can produce, usually male children.

While those aren't a direct result of putting the value of a human fetus above that of a grown human woman, they're the natural end result of such an attitude, at least over time. That's what happens when you automatically value one specific quality over every other. Doesn't matter whether it's innocence, intelligence, physical strength...whatever. By valuing one quality more than all others no matter what the circumstances, you necessarily must value all those others less.

Quote from: Mooby

I realize rape is contentious, but it still doesn't change the equation for me. Rape is a terrible, terrible thing, but for me it comes down to the intrinsic value of human life overriding the terribleness of the rape.

The problem being that this attitude basically treats an entire category of human beings - women - as if the value of their lives is less because they can get pregnant. That they don't have the right to make decisions about something intimate to them like what they can do if they get pregnant. That devalues their lives even under the best of circumstances - it treats them as if they don't have the right to make such a decision for themselves.

Quote from: Mooby

Risk to health is a sticky one, because here you have risk of death by passive means vs. an intentional killing. I'd say the latter is worse but then again I can't ask everyone to be a hero. So I'm going to weasel out and say that after exhausting all other options (and it's very rare that some other option isn't at least available to try), it might be ok. Preferably killing via double effect if it's at all possible.

In my opinion, death is death. There is no real distinction between 'passive' and 'active' death - you're still just as dead either way. And sometimes death is necessary, even beneficial. I'm reminded of a book I read once, actually. It was about a woman who was dying from cancer, and who was given the power to cure herself of that cancer. But she decided not to, because she realized that if she put her own life first, then she would stand a very good chance of making other people - including her husband and children - miserable. She chose to die, but to die a meaningful death when she wanted to, over staying alive simply to stay alive as long as possible.

Quote from: Mooby

Then you shouldn't have left it that open. I prefer couches to love seats; if you give me room to stretch out, I'm going to stretch.

There is something to be said for exercising discretion.

Quote from: Mooby

That's done all the time, though. Laws forbidding stealing coerce people who don't believe in personal property to abide by the majority's ethical beliefs. Laws forcing a group or government to recognize a same sex marriage impose an ethical belief on that group/government. And so on.

The latter doesn't force anyone to get married to someone else of the same sex, though. Indeed, all it really does is ensure that same sex couples get the same rights as opposite sex couples already have. As for the former, what it actually does is keep someone who doesn't respect personal property from imposing that ethical standard on others. There's no rule saying that they can't give away their own personal property, or accept what others freely give them. They just can't take something that belongs to someone else because they want to, at least not without risking a much larger penalty.

Quote from: Mooby

I'd say it's not my (or the government's) business in most cases where the effect is limited to those making the decision. But on an issue centering around whether one human is allowed to kill another, I think it perfectly within the rights of the government to protect the latter person from being killed.

Under most circumstances, I agree. But abortion is not really one of them, because, to be blunt, I don't really consider a fetus to have the same rights and privileges as even a baby. I don't approve of abortion, but I'm not willing to impose my disapproval onto others, especially when there's other serious issues that simply don't get talked about in this abortion debate.

Quote from: Mooby

Donating gametes just concerns you, so I'm fine with it.

Even if it's donating gametes for the express purpose of fusing them with other gametes (and thus having a fertilized egg)? Though I suppose you'd call that in vitro fertilization, even though it really isn't.

Most people here have heard my rants on this topic. Briefly, abortion should always be legal and safely available. The alternatives, as evidenced by the many countries that severely restricted abortion, create a world I don't want to live in, and certainly don't want my daughter to live in. This is one situation where we have many, many case studies to examine. See Romania under the pro-natalist communist dictator who outlawed virtually all contraception and abortions.[1]

Similarly we have many Catholic Latin American countries today where it is very hard to get a legal abortion. A year or so ago a young pregnant teen girl died (along with the fetus) in the Dominican Republic because the doctors refused to treat her cancer-- the treatment would have caused an abortion. So we get two deaths instead of one. Nice.

And the rape/incest exceptions just make women who seek abortions because they have voluntary sex, but don't want a baby, into "sluts". Speaking of so-called sluts,[2] any woman who qualifies for that title and who does not want a child should be shown to the front of the abortion clinic line and given one for free. No "slut" should be forced to become a mother. I value children too much to hand babies over to "sluts".

Quoting from the Wikipedia article: Wealthier women were able to obtain contraceptives illegally, or bribed doctors to give diagnoses which made abortion possible. Especially among the less educated and poorer women there were many unwanted pregnancies. These women could only utilize primitive methods of abortion, which led to infection, sterility or even their own death. The mortality among pregnant women became the highest of Europe during the reign of Ceau?escu. While the childbed mortality rate kept declining over the years in neighboring countries, in Romania it increased to more than ten times of that of its neighbors.

Many children born in this period became malnourished, were severely physically handicapped, or ended up in care under grievous conditions, which led to a rise in child mortality.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_770

Then maybe you can enlighten me on something. If you don't particularly care about things like this, then why are you talking about it?

I'm not the one who brought it up. Other people got bugs up their butts and started calling me disingenuous over it. But I agree with you that I really shouldn't need to defend the fact that I don't have an opinion on the word. It's not my problem.

Quote

Seems to me that in the former case, the mother is committing murder, whereas in the latter, the mother is simply not acting. Is it correct to say that you would find a mother who died to protect her child by throwing herself in the way of a car even less culpable for causing her own death because she acted to save another?

Correct.

Quote

Also, what about a situation that's less clear-cut? Like, say, someone who's otherwise innocent risking their life to help save the life of someone who's not. Let's say you have a convicted murderer, and someone gets beaten to death shielding him from an angry mob?

Someone choosing to undergo a high risk of death in the name of heroism is fine by me. Unless the person getting beaten to death was trying to commit suicide rather than save another.

Quote

I can't say I agree; this seems like mincing words to get around inconvenient facts. When you consider that the average smoker cuts at least a decade off of their lifespan due to those health problems you acknowledged, when you consider the harm that smokers can do to others, including reducing their lifespans - especially to the 'unborn' that pro-life people make their top priority, not to mention young children born to parents who smoke - seems to me that it fits the bill of an intentional, direct affront to human life. But that's just my opinion.

Regardless of your opinion, it's just way too nebulous and indirect to qualify as a life issue. IMO it's much better classed as a health issue.

Quote

While those aren't a direct result of putting the value of a human fetus above that of a grown human woman, they're the natural end result of such an attitude, at least over time. That's what happens when you automatically value one specific quality over every other. Doesn't matter whether it's innocence, intelligence, physical strength...whatever. By valuing one quality more than all others no matter what the circumstances, you necessarily must value all those others less.

That's an argument from consequences, though.

Quote

The problem being that this attitude basically treats an entire category of human beings - women - as if the value of their lives is less because they can get pregnant. That they don't have the right to make decisions about something intimate to them like what they can do if they get pregnant. That devalues their lives even under the best of circumstances - it treats them as if they don't have the right to make such a decision for themselves.

I am fine with a woman making whatever decision she wants about herself. I am against giving her the choice to kill someone else. If she finds a way to remove her pound of flesh without spilling blood, I'm all for it.

Quote

There is something to be said for exercising discretion.

If you wanted to exercise discretion, then you should have done so when you asked the question.

Quote

The latter doesn't force anyone to get married to someone else of the same sex, though. Indeed, all it really does is ensure that same sex couples get the same rights as opposite sex couples already have. As for the former, what it actually does is keep someone who doesn't respect personal property from imposing that ethical standard on others.

Are you shifting your view? You merely said before that no law should force or coerce others to abide by someone else's code.

Quote

Even if it's donating gametes for the express purpose of fusing them with other gametes (and thus having a fertilized egg)? Though I suppose you'd call that in vitro fertilization, even though it really isn't.

Yes, I would call it that. [wiki=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivf]"In vitro fertilisation (IVF) is a process by which an egg is fertilised by sperm outside the body: in vitro."[/wiki] How is what you described different from that?[1]

Quote

In the sense that there's nothing 'wrong' with it, I agree. But someone dying in a car accident is hardly a natural death. Would you consider that wrong?

So death induced by god is fine. Thank you for highlighting your double standards.

It much worse than a death caused by god. When popping the soul into the zygote, god already knew it was have to die so why even pop a soul in anyway?

Oh, and while we are at it, how does the theist know when the soul is popped into the zygote/foetus/baby? It would actually seem more likely that the soul is added just before birth to save wasted souls.

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

So death induced by god is fine. Thank you for highlighting your double standards.

It much worse than a death caused by god. When popping the soul into the zygote, god already knew it was have to die so why even pop a soul in anyway?

Oh, and while we are at it, how does the theist know when the soul is popped into the zygote/foetus/baby? It would actually seem more likely that the soul is added just before birth to save wasted souls.

Good point, and one which brings it similarly into line with the Patrick Henry discussion. That is, is a zygote/foetus/baby classed as alive before a soul is "implanted", or is it the soul that makes it alive?

Logged

Christian: "My faith grows every day."Atheist: "So does rhubarb, and for the same reason."

I'm not the one who brought it up. Other people got bugs up their butts and started calling me disingenuous over it. But I agree with you that I really shouldn't need to defend the fact that I don't have an opinion on the word. It's not my problem.

This doesn't really ring true. You weren't just defending yourself, you were sniping right back at Azdgari. Also, something you need to consider is that a person who doesn't take a position on something yet insists on talking about it anyway undercuts their own supposed disinterest. It suggests that they're only claiming to be disinterested, because if they were disinterested, they wouldn't be talking about it. That's probably why people have called you disingenuous.

You also didn't answer my question. If you don't care about something, why talk about it?

Quote

Seems to me that in the former case, the mother is committing murder, whereas in the latter, the mother is simply not acting. Is it correct to say that you would find a mother who died to protect her child by throwing herself in the way of a car even less culpable for causing her own death because she acted to save another?

Correct.

Quote from: Mooby

Someone choosing to undergo a high risk of death in the name of heroism is fine by me. Unless the person getting beaten to death was trying to commit suicide rather than save another.

I think you might have missed my point here...

Quote from: Mooby

Regardless of your opinion, it's just way too nebulous and indirect to qualify as a life issue. IMO it's much better classed as a health issue.

Well, I certainly can't force you or anyone to think of it the way I do.

Quote from: jaimehlers

While those aren't a direct result of putting the value of a human fetus above that of a grown human woman, they're the natural end result of such an attitude, at least over time. That's what happens when you automatically value one specific quality over every other. Doesn't matter whether it's innocence, intelligence, physical strength...whatever. By valuing one quality more than all others no matter what the circumstances, you necessarily must value all those others less.

Quote from: Mooby

That's an argument from consequences, though.

No, an appeal to consequences says that something is true (or false) because of its consequences. That's not what I did here - I simply stated that if you value one thing more than everything else, that means you must view everything else as being less valuable than it. It has no bearings on the truth value of doing that.

Quote from: Mooby

I am fine with a woman making whatever decision she wants about herself. I am against giving her the choice to kill someone else. If she finds a way to remove her pound of flesh without spilling blood, I'm all for it.

Herein lies the problem. You view anything from a fertilized egg up as a human being, and that it should be protected no matter what because it's innocent. More innocent, rather. I'm not going to criticize that. However, look at what you wrote here: "If she finds a way to remove her pound of flesh without spilling blood". In effect, you're putting the onus on pregnant women - that if they can't find a way to cease being pregnant without having an abortion, then they must carry the pregnancy to term.

Seems to me that the ones with the best chance of figuring out how to do that - or to figure out a better way to keep women from getting pregnant unless they want to be - are the groups which value life above all else, and who put stopping abortions at the top of their priority list. Right now, what they're doing is essentially trying to stop people from having abortions, which is having limited success. Even if they managed to make abortions illegal, it wouldn't stop them from happening. It would simply drive them underground and make them more dangerous.

The best solution in my opinion is not to focus on trying to make abortions illegal, but to eliminate the circumstances that drive people to pursue them. In short, coming up with a way to prevent fertilization from happening (except in the situations where it's wanted), and to come up with a feasible artificial womb. At the risk of repeating myself, it seems to me that putting some of that money that currently goes towards trying to make abortions illegal towards dealing with the preconditions that make abortions possible would be a far more effective and elegant solution.

Quote from: Mooby

If you wanted to exercise discretion, then you should have done so when you asked the question.

Don't try to play the fool like this, Mooby. When you aren't willing to exercise discretion at all - as your earlier comment indicates - trying to chastise someone else for a lack of discretion rings more than a bit falsely. More to the point, it's always possible to find a way to take advantage of what someone says; the only person who bears responsibility for your lack of discretion is you.

Quote from: Mooby

Are you shifting your view? You merely said before that no law should force or coerce others to abide by someone else's code.

I specifically brought up abortion, stem cell research, and other things along those lines. You're the one who generalized that, and now you're trying to accuse me of shifting my views because I don't buy into your generalizations? That's pure sophistry. Not to mention being disingenuous - you're trying to act as if I am changing my views, when in fact you're the one who brought up a more general subject and are now acting as if my earlier comment referred to all those other situations.

Quote from: Mooby

Yes, I would call it that. [wiki=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivf]"In vitro fertilisation (IVF) is a process by which an egg is fertilised by sperm outside the body: in vitro."[/wiki] How is what you described different from that?[1]

No, I didn't realize until just then what you meant by IVF,. But that brings to mind another issue. When you say you're opposed to IVF, what do you mean? Seems to me that there's a difference between, say, using gametes to make a fertilized egg for scientific purposes, and using gametes to make a fertilized egg for purposes of artificial insemination.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.